Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday October 20, 2011 @09:16AM
from the now-you-can-spell-his-name-however-you-want dept.

syngularyx writes with a snippet from Reuters' report that "Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi died of wounds suffered on Thursday as fighters battling to complete an eight-month-old uprising against his rule overran his hometown Sirte, Libya's interim rulers said. His killing, which came swiftly after his capture near Sirte, is the most dramatic single development in the Arab Spring revolts that have unseated rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened the grip on power of the leaders of Syria and Yemen." An anonymous reader links to the news as reported by Al Jazeera (citing confirmation from the military spokesman of the National Transition Council). Time reports that many Libyans were celebrating even preliminary reports of Gaddafi's death.

Well judging by the fact the BBC just posted a still from a live feed from Al Jazeera which shows someone who looks pretty much like Gaddafi being dragged through the street I'd say it's pretty much more reliable. It's further bolstered by the fact the kid who supposedly found him was shown waving round a gold plated desert eagle or similar. I doubt that's the type of expensive custom side arm that's just left lying around.

Unless Gaddafi is capable of coming back from the dead I think there's a fair chance he's gone.

Kamis is long dead, even Gaddafi's own Syrian based TV station accepted that.

A trial would have been a farce. How can you try a dictator in the heat of battle, especially in a nation where the very same dictator had destroyed civil society?

Ghaddafi's government functioned as a true totalitarian regime, with all functional aspects deriving from the dictator himself. The Transitional Government still is in its infancy, and could not organize a legitimate court system for years.

What I regret is that Ghaddafi could not be interrogated by neutral agencies - say at The Hague. He had close relationships with the IRA, various Palestinian terrorist groups, and very interesting relationships with major oil companies. Now we cannot find out who he worked with, what bribes he paid, and what other crimes he and his government had committed.

And remember, this man ordered the destruction of an airliner, killing 270 in the air and on the ground - including a large group of college kids, researchers, purely innocent civilians. I hope the families and friends of the victims can find some peace that the murderer is dead.

A trial would have been a farce. How can you try a dictator in the heat of battle, especially in a nation where the very same dictator had destroyed civil society?

This. I do still think it would have been better to capture him alive, because a man like him deserves to watch as everything he built crumbles around him, and despair. But there was no possibility of a fair trial; any attempt would have been a pointless illusion at best, and more likely would have been actively harmful.

My first reaction is "good riddance." The human race is much better off without him; too bad it couldn't have happened 30 years ago, etc.. It really is a whole lot cleaner for him to be dead than to have him captured and alive, expounding his delusional nonsense to anyone within earshot, and all the messiness of putting him on trial.

On the other hand, his sudden death does mean that the Libyans, and the rest of the world, lose the opportunity to air out the closet (so to speak) and try him for his many crimes. The result would almost certainly have been the same (death), but the process would have been important for Libya: to delegitimize his legacy, to legitimize the rule of law under a new government, to exorcise old demons and grievances so as to move on, and to ferret out his many collaborators. I wouldn't say it was a complete success in Saddam's trial in Iraq. It may not come to pass for Mubarak in Egypt. The international criminal court has mad mixed success with the perpetrators in the former Yugoslavia. Still, I believe these things do matter, and there is merit in attempting it.

Conversely, I look at the relative stability of Libya before and with Gaddafi, and I wonder if his removal is really such a good thing, especially for the average Libyan. Seems to me Libya is more likely to descend back into perpetual civil war than to become a "democratic" state.

And if you want to see what a relatively uneducated voting populace spits up for leaders, look no further than California. Name recognition trumped a 13% approval rate -- 100% were nonetheless re-elected last time around. Tell me h

How cool would that have been to see him and some courtesan bad mouthing each other in front of hidden cameras and then acting all smoochy with each other afterwards.

Guess no chance of having an "I'm a dictator, get me out of here" reality show. Can you imagine Gaddafi, Saddam, Kim Jong Il and Amadinejad on a desert island together? Which one would be voted off first.......ooops silly me, voting is for democracy.

But Gaddafi, like, he soooo dreamy, ummm... like err, that moustache... yeah... um... like I love them both... they so nice to me... they only kill people that like deserve it... give them a break people........ I ummmm... like, so not going to give Robert Mugabe a rose, he ummm won't even let me keep my farm.

Can you imagine Gaddafi, Saddam, Kim Jong Il and Amadinejad on a desert island together?

Such a gathering would only last a micro-second as they were nuked from space turning the entire desert into a sheet of glass. I can dream, can't I? Ya ya, I know. Fallout and all that stuff. But damn that would be satisfying to watch.

The point is that a fair trial for this man is not possible. It might be possible to cook up a cheap-looking imitation, but the underpinnings -among them, impartial triers of fact and of law- wouldn't be there: they do not exist for people such as this. Barring major evolutionary changes to the human condition -in particular, overcoming the limitations imposed by individual perspective- they will never exist. Trying to prop up such a sham for cases like this is harmful, because it propagates the destructive

I've often wondered what happens with all the ammo that is shot up in celebration when something like this occurs. I know the mythbusters did something on the matter some time ago, and I don't recall what they found. You would think that when people are shooting off their AK's into the air in a city that something would get hit, even if it was just lead falling onto building rooftops.

Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that.30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger.50 caliber bullets have a terminal velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s).[8] A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin,[9] and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull.[10] A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury.[11](go chase citations here [wikipedia.org])

got three different ~.30 caliber rifles here... amusingly none are a.30 carbine. but all should be able to be used to accidentally kill someone standing next to you with indirect fire.

They found that a bullet fired straight up isn't dangerous to people on the ground. Its just like dropping a bullet from a hot air balloon.

Yes, but only because their terminal velocity speeds were ridiculously wrong based on a flawed experiment in a wind tunnel. They tried blowing air at a bullet until it stopped falling and assumed 150 fps of wind resistance works the same on a bullet travelling 0 fps and one travelling 150 fps. In reality the bullet is extremely aerodynamically stable at 150 fps and will continue to accelerate until it reaches a terminal velocity of 3-500 fps, depending on the type of bullet. Around 200 fps is the border for

Do you have a source for that? I've heard it claimed before but the chances of someone actually getting hit by a round fired at a low enough trajectory to kill seems extremely low, and if it were to happen then it wouldn't be anywhere near the actual celebration.

The actual reports on Al Jazeera and elsewhere suggest that he was badly wounded in the legs and head while being captured and died of his wounds in captivity. The phrase above suggests that he was first captured, then deliberately killed which none of the reports suggests. Just FYI, for those who don't have time to read any of the many articles that are flashing up as AJ has posted what is claimed to be an actual (rather

Sure, but I'm guessing that we (the US and NATO) have access to Gadhafi's DNA, and of course many of his offspring are still living so we have access to his first degree relatives' DNA. I'm also fairly certain that NATO (and probably the US) have people on the ground in Libya who will be given the opportunity to take samples of his tissue to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the dead person is indeed him, just as they have done for many other tyrants or terrorists.

(Libya, Tripoli) Sign Painters are busy removing Libya's prior reigning ruler's name off the office door at the main palace. It has been a while since the painters have had to do this job. Quoted from one on the painters, "This paint has been on the door way to long." A concerned paint supervisor admonished the paint team by saying, "hurry up, it is almost lunch time."

"Wake me up when something important happens" - President Ronald Regan, 1986

arab spring seems to be a shitty operation by u.s. to topple unfriendly governments to install their own islamist supporters and to oblige the countries to financial system.

Right. Which explains why one of the first governments that was overthrown in the "Arab Spring" was Egypt... a staunch US ally that the US had poured many billions of dollars into. Congratulations. You managed to set a new record for cluelessness.

Don't let the fact that the US supported the prior regime make you think that they were best buddies - the US and Egyptian governments have had huge differences in the past, especially over Israel. Their relationship was more one of convenience than actual friendship - the US would have loved to have seen a better regime come into power in Egypt (whether they got one remains to be seen).

Right. Which explains why one of the first governments that was overthrown in the "Arab Spring" was Egypt... a staunch US ally that the US had poured many billions of dollars into. Congratulations. You managed to set a new record for cluelessness.

The Egyptian government has yet to be overthrown. Egypt was ruled by the military before the arab spring, and it's ruled by the military today.

You are referring to Air Chief Marshall Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak of the Egyptian Air Force, and the Egyptian army's previous pick to lead the country? I wonder who the army will pick as their next leader of the country?

This is just a single woman spreading conspiracy theories. And I know, that hormones can influence rational thought, but to throw away all logic just because some girl tells you strange stuff?If you were a muslim extremist with a very negative attitude towards the U.S., would you join a movement which is supposedly sponsored by the very same U.S.? If not, who are the actual people the Muslim Brotherhood consists of? American patriots?

Right. I'm sure that I believe this "turkish journalist" can explain why the US spent many billions of dollars to prop up Hosni Mubarak so Egypt would maintain the peace with Israel (another staunch US ally), while SIMULTANEOUSLY backing a Muslin extremist group to overthrow that government. Do you really think the new government is going to be more friendly to the USA than the old? The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is somehow sponsored by the USA is just bizarre. I'm sure US intelligence is trying t

Do you seriously believe US is so inherently cohesive that it would never try to push two opposing agendas through two opposing internal forces? That there are no internal struggles and power games within the US that spill on other countries? Besides,

Supporting "friend Mubarak" was safer than allowing true democracy which would put completely unexpected and uncontrolled force at the helm. Pump dollars into Mubarak suppressing any opposition hostile to the US. Now that one force strong enough to take over an

Once it became clear which way the wind was blowing, the US didn't have a whole lot of choice but support "Arab Spring". What was the alternative? Encourage a Syrian-style slaughter?

But the idea that somehow the whole process was fomented by the USA is just the height of idiocy. It doesn't just require a tin-foil hat, it requires hundreds of vacuum tubes, both inside & outside the brain.

It says right there on the page you cited that they don't. Quoting from the very first screen (MB spokesman):

"We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the rig

The Holy Land Foundation trial has led to the release, as evidence, of[82] several documents on the Muslim Brotherhood. One of these documents, dated in 1991, explains that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is "settlement," defined by the author[who?] as a form of jihad aimed at destroying Western civilisation from within and allowing for the victory of Islam over other religions.[83] In another one of these documents, "Ikhwan in America", the author alleges that the activities of

Uh, you do realize that actually the Muslim Brotherhood hates [wikipedia.org] "western culture" and the U.S., right?

The issue is much more complex than "hating western culture", though there are some that do. Some hate their own rulers, who crushed any calls for political reform and civil rights with pure violence. Some hate the West because for decades the West was seen as backers of those despotic rulers; the West supplied military aid and weapons to the regimes of dictators, who went on to use those weapons against the people. Would you dislike China if they gave military weaponry to Al-Qaeda, who in turn used this we

Ah, you mean the part about not loaning money at interest? Yes, he's clearly taken many steps in that direction. Devilish clever, to loan/give huge amounts of money (at interest) to banks so that they can continue to loan massive amounts of that money (at interest) back to believers and unbelievers alike, hoping to cause us to rise up and put an end to usurious lending practices -- it is even working!

Or perhaps you mean the part about homosexual individuals needing to be stoned to death and women kept

Admittedly this is all based on reports that I would only trust to be semi-accurate so far, but it seems pretty clear that he was not executed but was a casualty of war. The last loyalist bastion in Sirte has been home to intense fighting in the past few weeks, and now it's clear why. According to the report, Gaddafi was either killed in a convoy that was hit by a NATO airstrike or by NTC fighters on the street. Unless he was shot while trying to surrender, and I seriously doubt that he would surrender give

but isn't "Stuff that matters" a clarifying explication of "News for nerds"?in other words, it means to imply that "on this website, Nerd news IS what matters" rather than "on this website, Nerd news, oh and also other stuff that matter just as much"and in every definition, "Nerd" means a one-track-mind dedicated to technology or other socially-atrophying pursuitsunless of course you redefine (and dilute) the word "Nerd" to encompass every field of interest, but then that would make "Nerd news" indistinguishable from just "news", and make/.'s motto rather banal and lifeless.

now, I'm not saying this news won't give us some very lively conversation, or that I don't appreciate it being here. on the contrary. I guess I'm being pedantic since this excuse always comes up whenever someone makes a point about the mainstream-ification, I guess you could say, of slashdot, and it always strikes me as unconvincing.

"We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people's will, removing all obstacles that restrict the functioning of civil society organizations, etc."

People forget that the American ideal of freedom of speech isn't even shared by other Western nations, much less Islamic ones.

but they don't seem to be a "we want to conquer the West" organization

One of their stated goals is to unite the Muslim world under one caliphate. The definition of that world is all territory Muslims ever held, which includes some of Europe. Evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial showed an MB goal to "settle" the US, destroy the current civ

Which is why the islamic extremists hated America. *NOT* because of our foreign policy. That was a global excuse of justification to recruit additional members from around the world. No, the true reason they attacked the West is because democracy is the antithesis to their belief. You see, the act of democracy and self determination is an act of hubris. That in of itself is punishable by death according to Al-Qaeda.

I do have hopes that the Muslim Brotherhood would be more tolerant...more humble while still

Which is why the islamic extremists hated America. *NOT* because of our foreign policy. That was a global excuse of justification to recruit additional members from around the world. No, the true reason they attacked the West is because democracy is the antithesis to their belief. You see, the act of democracy and self determination is an act of hubris. That in of itself is punishable by death according to Al-Qaeda.

That's nonsense. Islamism is a movement against those who commit what they consider to be injustice or unjust rule. Now people can argue all they want about what constitutes injustice and whether there is any justification for the feelings of injustice. But to resort to "They Hate Our Freedom" is missing the point. Islamists are active or have been active against the USA (a non-Muslim democracy), Arab dictatorships (nominally Muslim), the USSR (most certainly not a democracy or Muslim) and even against targ

A good part of it is because the West helped in the creation of the state of Israel, just 30 short years after the Palestinians won their right to statehood for their part in dismantling the Ottoman Empire. Add onto this the West's continued meddling in their governments' affairs, assassinating their democratically elected leaders and installing better puppets, and you have a pretty clear picture of what has caused the radicalization of Islamic beliefs.

If it worked the other way around, with Iran assassinating US presidents in order to install Iran friendly dictators; if Egypt annexed large swaths of the East Cost of the USA to give back to the Native Americans; if the Middle East had their unified Islamic Government the way the EU and US are unified, and then randomly put boots on the ground and military bases throughout America . . . then you might be a radicalized Christian (or whatever your faith is).

The only self interest for the respective NATO countries involved in this was prevention of mass immigration to Europe if Gaddafi continued to make things worse in his country, but mostly this was the first bout of military action in a long while that was actually meaningful, just, and most importantly - succesful.

Errr, well, no. Europe and especially France & Italy are very dependent on Libyan oil. It's not like one day the Europeans woke up and discovered that there's a dictatorship in Libya and some people are revolting against it. If not all, at least most European leaders (Tony Blair, Sarkozy, Berlusconi etc) have shaked hands with Gaddafi in the past in good spirit (just google it). And Europe's relationship with Libya was in good terms until 1 year ago.
So, the matters in Libya are way more complicated tha

Right, so dependent on it that since action in Libya European oil prices have actually largely stabilised rather than increased as would be the case if it was such an important source?

It's nothing to do with the fact European leaders waking up and realising he was a bad man, they knew this all along. It was about the fact the Libyan people and Arab/Middle Eastern people in general were ready to rise up, that was the fundamental turning point. Apparently you missed that rather major section in the news for the last 9 months+

Allow me to not take the "news" as *facts*. My logic says that some powerful countries like France & Italy didn't agree with some of Gaddafi's oil policies so they helped the local population overthrow him. I'm not saying that Gaddafi wasn't a dictator and he didn't deserve to be hanged. But thanking NATO for its actions in Libya is hypocrisy at large - If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.
Oh and regarding the "mass immigration" t

If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.

Actually Reagan tried [wikipedia.org] that decades ago. Remember, Spain wouldn't let him fly over Spanish territory and our F111's had to fly all the way around Europe? Remember all the flack Reagan took for the collateral damage, including the death of a little girl?

Taking out an entrenched dictator is not as easy as it would seem, as recent history has shown.

But thanking NATO for its actions in Libya is hypocrisy at large - If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.

No, because taking out a dictator in the absence of a local revolutionary force to combat the regime means that we have to not just take out the dictator but the rest of their military and government ourselves, so we become occupiers that hope to eventually hand the country back to its own people. You know, like in Iraq.

However supporting a popular uprising, preventing the dictator from being able to freely use their military hardware to crush the uprising, so that the people themselves can take the country back for themselves without us ever deciding whether or not they deserve it is how you show you care about the Libyan people.

Oh and obviously decades ago the U.S. didn't give two shits about the Libyan people. It was all about Israeli and Cold War politics. Controllable dictators were better than communists or free countries that might become communist was the official line. That's why we supported assholes like Gaddafi and Saddam.

Times have changed. And now, for the first time in decades, we've put ourselves on the right side of history.

Like I already said above in my reply to ArcherB's comment, we could have easily taken out Gaddafi when he officially visited France in 2007 and Italy in 2009 (both countries are NATO allies).

Here's a link to my other post [slashdot.org] in response to someone suggesting assassination. TLDR version: Assassination is not regime change, so you accomplish nothing positive and actually make things worse.

Things will get interesting since many members of Gaddafi's regime that undoubtedly had a hand in most of the atrocities of his rule are now born again democrats, and the ethnic cleansing of black people done by "libyan democrats" will go unpunished. Maybe with is death now libyan people can start to ask the unpleasant questions to the members of his regime.

I find very impressive that many people can overlook the big burning elephant in the room that is libyan oil. For all the empty rhetoric about freedom t

Look, Gaddafi was a complex and strange man, and there can be no doubt that he did some things for his own people and others that other, more straightforwardly venal Arab dictators, did not do. But: an entire nation was scared to criticise him for 42 years; he killed thousands of his own people in the most vicious and terrible ways; and he punished entire cities and regions whose support he thought he did not have fully. Net net, he was a vile and terrible dictator.

Yeah, that's why the majority of Libyans were happy to step up and overthrow him.

Or are you going to extend your conspiracy theory into suggesting the west has succesfully manipulated the thoughts of an entire nation and they couldn't possibly have come to the conclusion they wanted rid all by themselves?

The people decided they wanted rid long before NATO stepped in, the only reason they failed to that point is because Gaddafi was bringing in foreign mercenairies and using overwhelming military force agains

Can you explain why NATO intervened to "protect the civilians" when Gaddafi's forces were shelling rebel-held cities, but stand back when rebel forces similarly shell cities held by Gaddafi's supporters?

How about the fact that rebels have instituted massive pogroms against Libya's black population, accusing them all - indiscriminately! - of being supporters of the old regime (I'm sure you've heard the phrase "African mercenaries" more than once), even with respect to people who are clearly civilians? The sc

The issues the rebels have faced can be put down entirely to the challenges a civilian formed rebellion faces when fighting a well trained loyal military armed with modern Western supplied weaponry (i.e. French mobile artillery).

If Gaddafi genuinely had support from a large (as in a non-negligible percentage of the population) civilian base then that civilian base backed up by the military would've easily defeated the rebels even with NATO airpower. NATO airpower however allowed guerilla warfare to win out,

Dear AC, go fuck yourself. This gun toting meat eating liberal says we should have dealt with Gadaffi years ago. We should be helping Liberia as well and dealing with the LRA. We should pay for all this by getting the hell out of Afghanistan, except for the civilized regions of it. Let the hicks have their caves.

Dear AC, go fuck yourself. This gun toting meat eating liberal says we should have dealt with Gadaffi years ago.

I disagree. We never should have initiated action to take out Gadaffi. This is how you become occupiers (whether that's your intent or not, it is what happens), like we did after "dealing with" Saddam's regime.

Instead we should have waited for the Libyan people to initiate action to take out Gadaffi, and then helped them deal with Gadaffi themselves. Which is what we did. Planes in the air, advisers on the ground, and material support, but no U.S. marines patrolling Tripoli with us hoping that eventually Libyans will be able to do it themselves. Instead of us taking over Libya and then handing back to them when we feel they're ready, we helped Libyans take over Libya for themselves, and now it is theirs. This is infinitely better.

Imagine if the French had decided to "deal with" the British government in the American colonies well before the revolution. How hated would they have been? Instead, they provided significant -- I would say decisive -- support for a popular uprising, and thus became a great and loved ally of the U.S. for many years (minus a few disagreements and one quasi-war at sea), until Americans forgot that without the French we'd still be spelling color with a 'u'.

By the way, I do think we never should have supported Gadaffi and maybe this would have happened sooner.

Also, the right time to have dealt with Saddam was when the uprising occurred after Desert Storm. And we never should have supported him, either. Then we might have actually been greeted as liberators.

Going after every 'bad' guy is not the right way to exercise military power in a 'liberal' way. At least if it's the outcome that matters, not the feel-good activism aspect.

I do not mean occupy, I mean send in a sniper and let him spend $1 to remove the problem. No need for the big military way.

Then one of his many sons takes power, all his military and power structure is still in place, and his supporters -- and even detractors -- are rallied around opposition to Western interventionism.

Kinda like how whenever the U.S. or Israel rattle sabers at Iran, the Iranian regime becomes more powerful. Because even the many Iranians who hate the government would rather have it than have the U.S. try to 'liberate' Iran. The vast majority of them still believe in the Islamic Revolution, which was when the

Actually, liberals have pretty much been unified in their stance against supporting dictatorship regimes, who murder their citizens and fail to respect basic human rights. Unlike some [youtube.com], other [whitenoiseinsanity.com] groups [whitenoiseinsanity.com]. Watch The War On Democracy [google.com] and then show me a single liberal who supports overthrowing democratic governments. Show me a single liberal who is against basic human rights. In every case I can think of, liberals have opposed supporting these regimes, whilst those on the right-wing have often argued otherwise (th

Because American politics aren't divisive enough already... You aren't helping the debate by using the worst examples to characterize a group. Should we characterize all Democrats as their worst members?

Of course not, you should characterize them by their most prominent and popular members. For the Reps, that's everyone who's still running for President. For the Dems, that's Obama and co.

It's not like I picked some unknown Republican state legistator somewhere to make all Republicans look bad, I picked on